At dinner last night there was discussion of the quality of (or lack there of) airline service. One individual complained about the consumer injustice of some airlines now charging for checking an additional piece of luggage. I made the observation that most of us at dinner were business travelers or light packers so, on average, we benefit from the policy through lower ticket prices. “But that’s ridiculous, ticket prices haven’t gone down,” everyone at the table scoffed. I tried, rather unsuccessfully, to explain:
A piece of luggage is additional weight and so adds to the cost of the flight. Absent pricing, the cost is distributed across all ticketed flyers. Unless you carry more than the average amount of luggage, you benefit from the policy by no longer splitting the bill with heavy packers. In fact, flyers will respond to the price signal, begin to pack lighter, on average, and the entire flight will become more efficient, so the cost should go down marginally for everyone, but more for lighter packers.
The same is true for airline food. Unless you really like airline meals, the policy of charging for snacks instead of serving free meals is a net benefit to you.
Of course, given the variability in airline prices and myriad other costs, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for a customer to observe this effect. But unless you think airline prices are set collusively, it
The logic is glaringly obvious. And yet it amazes me how difficult it is for otherwise exceptional bright people to grasp the concept. How has a species which appears to have selected for a general aversion to or incapacity for economic thinking achieved such prosperity?
.JPG)
.jpg)
4 comments:
I am right behind you; though, I do like airplane food, I'd rather pack a lunch and pay less in ticket prices. This also applies to the extra bag costs, etc.
In this same vein I have often wonder, especially since American's new $15 dollar check in bag fee, if airlines will start charging customers different amounts based on their weight. I realize this is not a very sensitive idea, but it is logical. If we are willing to argue that extra bags and thus extra weight should be charged as it adds to fuel cost, why not charge by different customer weight. My guess is customers' weight differences can be more than those in carry on bags (e.g 25lbs for carry on's and up to >100lbs for people).
As such, I am only weighting for the day airlines begin charging the person who weighs over 200lbs and extra $50. Hey, just another incentive for people to loose a bit of weight (except of course for people who have high weight due to muscle).
Anyone else?
I agree as well that passengers would take note, pack lighter, and carry less bags in general in response to a marked change in price. However, I doubt that most travelers, as already noted, would be able to 'feel' this price change due to general variability in ticket pricing in general.
As for Angel's point, I agree on the weight issue, to a certain degree. If a person is glaringly overweight, yes, perhaps they should be charged some surcharge because, if they cause the weight of the plane to cross a certain level, they are decreasing the efficiency of the flight. (I have no idea what weight this is, but it exists.) However, the issue of fairness would of course come up, and come up quickly. A tall, athletic individual would argue against a weight surcharge because he/she may be over the flight weight requirement but still be able to fit in an individual seat. My beef is with the individual who cannot even fit in one seat. Absolutely charge them for two seats.
That said, I'm no picky traveler and couldn't care less about amenities on a flight (unless in first class). I'll take lower prices even if it means no food, no drink, no movie, no pillow, etc.
How much does valium cost? $1 a pill? Just give every passenger a valium and a beer. Then you don't have to feed them, you don't need flight attendants, and they probably won't care if their baggage doesn't show up at their destination.
Most of this sounds good. Emily and I have talked about the whole individual weight thing before. She complained because the airline was going to charge her for one of her bags that weighed 51 lbs (ultimately they let her take stuff out) this after the guy who checked-in in front of her looked like he weighed over 350. The "safety" of baggage handler’s aside - the passenger weight issue is real. As Adam points out, it sucks when the person next to me is so big their love handles are spilling over the arm rests.
My only issue with this baggage cost at this point - is that we already are limited in what you can take with you on a trip because of security concerns. So you are limited in what you can actually pack in your take on, and now I have to pay to check the stuff I was told I'm not allowed to bring with me? Point is, it is hard to balance the two competing interests. But I don’t really care if the airplane doesn’t serve me food either. However, as I already pointed out – it will suck if I am going to also be charged to get drinks on the plane, after I already can’t bring on my own (unless I pay 200% the standard cost of a drink in the terminal).
Lastly I’ll say this. Can any of you tell me why our government should be providing any assistance to the airlines? I’m wondering what we gain from maintain and buttressing companies that are performing badly. There seem to be companies out there that are still making money, still performing at a high level. So why do we need to make sure American companies remain? Any thoughts?
Post a Comment